https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189437 A cooperative mill was held not to be State or an authority under Article 12 because the record did not show governmental ownership, deep and pervasive control, State funding meeting almost the whole expenditure, or a State-conferred monopoly. A writ under Article 226 was also unavailable against the mill on a public-duty theory, because manufacture and sale of sugar was not treated as a public function. The writ petitions further failed because key service facts, including completion of 240 days and employee status, were seriously disputed and were fit for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act framework. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2024 22:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189437 A cooperative mill was held not to be State or an authority under Article 12 because the record did not show governmental ownership, deep and pervasive control, State funding meeting almost the whole expenditure, or a State-conferred monopoly. A writ under Article 226 was also unavailable against the mill on a public-duty theory, because manufacture and sale of sugar was not treated as a public function. The writ petitions further failed because key service facts, including completion of 240 days and employee status, were seriously disputed and were fit for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act framework. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189437